So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.

Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.

(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)

This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.

So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.

Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.

(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)

This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.

So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.

Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.

(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)

This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.

So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.

Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.

(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)

This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.

So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.

Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.

(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)

This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.